R: lingtyp

[Frans Plank]

>From: Pierluigi Cuzzolin <pgcuzzo at unipv.it>
>To: Frans Plank <Frans.Plank at uni-konstanz.de>
>Subject: R: lingtyp
>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 14:34:28 -0000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>
>Dear Frans,
>the problem is that my message is rejected whenever I use the address
>lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>In any case, may I submit my question to you?
>this is the message I tried to send:
>
>Of course, thank you!
>Pierluigi
>
>
>Hi everybody!
>Among the Indo-European languages the Celtic ones exhibit a special form for
>the impersonal for every tense. In Irish, for instance, oltar can only mean
>German "man trinkt" or French "on boit"  (I prefer German  and French
>because in English "one drinks" is ambiguous), being the 3. Pers. Sg. ol
>sé/si, literally "drink(s) he/she" different. I do not take into account
>cases such as those attested in Breton, Chaha (see the contribution by
>Leslau in the Festschrift In Honor to Roman Jakobson, 1967, Mouton, The
>Hague-Paris, vol. II: 1150-1162), where side by side there are a personal
>and an impersonal verbal paradigm (in this respect Breton and Chaha cases
>are very similar but not identical) or in Chibchan family (see Quesada's
>paper in Linguistic Typology, 1999, 3-2: 209-258, in particular 248-250).
>The origin of the impersonal endings are to be traced back to middle or
>passive ones (how an impersonal meaning developed from a a middle or a
>passive endings is not always cut-clear but this problem is irrelevat here).
>>>From a typological point of view we can tentatively describe the situation
>as follows:
>
>1) languages where one and the same form is used for the 3. Pers. Sg. and
>for the impersonal: Latin canit "he sings" and pudet (eum) "he feels
>ashamed";
>
>2) languages where there are two different forms, one for the 3. Pers. Sg.
>and one for the impersonal, as in the Modern Irish Examples above.
>
>However, at least from a theoretical point of view, if we correctly include
>zero among the verbal endings, the picture is a little bit more complicate:
>
>as for 1) we could also have a language where a 3. Pers. Sg. has a zero
>ending for the personal and the impersonal form as well;
>
>as for 2), the logical combinations are
>
>                                            Personal
>Impersonal
>
>                                                X
>zero
>
>                                                zero
>X
>
>where X is an ending whatever.
>If I am not wrong, there are five logical combinations:
>
>                                            PERSONAL            IMPERSONAL
>
>Type A1                                    X
>X
>
>Type A2                                   zero
>zero
>
>Type B1                                    X
>Y
>
>Type B2                                   zero
>X
>
>Type B3                                    X
>zero
>
>In type A the endings are identical, in type B they are different.
>My questions are:
>
>1) can you please me indicate if you know a type which is not attested
>among the world's languages?
>
>2) as far as you know, is there an implicational hierarchy among the
>different types mentioned above?
>
>Thanks in advance
>Pierluigi
>
>
>
>
>-----Messaggio originale-----
>Da: Frans Plank <Frans.Plank at uni-konstanz.de>
>A: pgcuzzo at unipv.it <pgcuzzo at unipv.it>
>Data: lunedì 22 novembre 1999 12.48
>Oggetto: lingtyp
>
>
>>Dear Pierluigi,
>>
>>just send the message to
>>
>> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>
>>best
>>Frans
>>
>>
>>
>